Two of each key eschatology term, but one is abandoned!

[EarlyActs]

There are two senses to each eschatological term: Israel, covenant, Moses, Elijah, temple, etc. But the NT says that one of them (ie, old) is abandoned!

People with a 2-equal-program approach are not keeping up with the apostles. The 2-program approach of Dispensationalism says that there are two programs going, that they don't sync, that they are skew, and that you need their 'system' to help you make sense of a Bible that otherwise does not. This is found in the Ryrie (DTS) book and really in all the founders of.

Dispensationalism is neo-Judaic because, as you can see from the interactions with Judaism in the early church, groups rose up which 'embraced' Christ--so long as you embraced torah traditions, ceremonies, practice. This is found in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, Phillipians, both Corinthians, Hebrews (!), etc. In Colossians, in western Asia, you were dis-credited if you did not practice torah with them. The term dis-credit (paralogizo) was specifically used to conflict with justification which is logizo to the believer.

I don't think too many people will go down the road of the Judaizers on practice of torah, but they have on eschatology. See Jn 12:34; the commonly understood view was that Messiah's kingdom would be on earth forever going forward. Jesus called this darkness, because His imperative kingdom had come. But many attempts are made to have a kingdom form like the Davidic--Solomonic days, and in the same place. For a time slot for this, the 1000 year image of the Rev has been adopted, even though there are numerous references to the kingdom being forever once it arrives, Dan 2, Ps 145, etc. Straining to make this work, we find that the time is both desolate in some views and a panacea in others.

 

[EarlyActs]

So I oppose Judaic eschatology, but I am not anti-semitic and see no connection. If modern Israel got its place surreptitiously then that is another matter again. I am a historian first, then a theologian. I have also found that Judaic eschatology already had a 'times of the Gentiles' and it may have been correct--but irresolvable with a permanent Jerusalem Davidic king: it simply meant that after Messiah came, the Gentiles were to be reached with his message.

What I can tell you is that there are "Messianic" Jews today who have personally treated me like Acts 10-11, and a friend recently related that the MJ group on his college campus told people not to read Galatians!

 

[TMSO]

So I oppose Judaic eschatology, but I am not anti-semitic and see no connection. If modern Israel got its place surreptitiously then that is another matter again. I am a historian first, then a theologian. I have also found that Judaic eschatology already had a 'times of the Gentiles' and it may have been correct--but irresolvable with a permanent Jerusalem Davidic king: it simply meant that after Messiah came, the Gentiles were to be reached with his message.

I think you got that "times of the Gentiles" from Paul, who spoke about it. However, he also said that it would come around to Israel again. Israel would receive mercy, due to the obedience of the Gentiles. Since you seem/appear to deny this, that is why antisemitism comes up. (Please note by saying seem/appear, that should be understood to mean... open to discussion. However, discussion is a two way street.) To reiterate my position, hopefully being clear, those saved at that time (after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) are the remnant/the elect that remain within the Nation of Israel, not those who joined the church. The millennial kingdom is not meant to be eternal. Revelation 21 makes that clear when it says that the first heaven and first earth have passed away. I Corinthians 15 also says that the Son gives the kingdom back to the Father after He defeats the final enemy, death. In an earthly view, the millennial kingdom leads into the eternal kingdom of the Father, in which we see the NHNE, and New Jerusalem.

"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His [a]people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”"

What I can tell you is that there are "Messianic" Jews today who have personally treated me like Acts 10-11, and a friend recently related that the MJ group on his college campus told people not to read Galatians!

And I'm sure there are Messianic Jews who will tell you that there are Gentiles who treated them like Romans 11, condemning themselves before God.

"17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [j]rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” "

Why don't you consider discussing the possibility that it actually is just one program that has different parts? You keep speaking of the enthronement of Christ as though everything simply ended there, wave a magic wand. You don't seem to consider it simply being the start of something more. Again, where Jesus life in prophecy reflects what Israel went through. Consider there is another layer above that, as even the church brought up one of the prophecies AGAIN, and built upon it AGAIN. The prophecies Jesus and John bring up may ALSO have another layer, another fulfillment. Consider that the abomination of desolation occurred in the 2nd century BC where some king put an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies, and sacrificed pigs in the Holy of Holies, where God's presence resided at the Ark of the Covenant. Consider that Titus tried to do the approximate same thing in 70AD, except that the temple was destroyed before he got the chance. And, that was apparently a freak accident. He had intended on putting an altar in the temple, and dedicating the temple to Rome. (It was either to the pantheon of Roman gods, or to the Roman Emperor being god.) It would have been basically the same abomination of desolation. I consider it that God did not allow it at that time, so He destroyed the temple through the Romans. (A fire, started by accident, that both the Jews and Romans attempted to put out, except that there was not enough water in Jerusalem.

 

[Mr GLee]

Fullness of nations or called fulness of the gentiles. The time of first century reformation. Other nations that were separated became one new Christian nation . Christian the new name the father promised to namer His bride previously called her Israel .

Acts 2:16-17 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

 

[EarlyActs]

I think you got that "times of the Gentiles" from Paul, who spoke about it. However, he also said that it would come around to Israel again. Israel would receive mercy, due to the obedience of the Gentiles. Since you seem/appear to deny this, that is why antisemitism comes up. (Please note by saying seem/appear, that should be understood to mean... open to discussion. However, discussion is a two way street.) To reiterate my position, hopefully being clear, those saved at that time (after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) are the remnant/the elect that remain within the Nation of Israel, not those who joined the church. The millennial kingdom is not meant to be eternal. Revelation 21 makes that clear when it says that the first heaven and first earth have passed away. I Corinthians 15 also says that the Son gives the kingdom back to the Father after He defeats the final enemy, death. In an earthly view, the millennial kingdom leads into the eternal kingdom of the Father, in which we see the NHNE, and New Jerusalem.

"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His [a]people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”"

And I'm sure there are Messianic Jews who will tell you that there are Gentiles who treated them like Romans 11, condemning themselves before God.

"17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [j]rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” "

Why don't you consider discussing the possibility that it actually is just one program that has different parts? You keep speaking of the enthronement of Christ as though everything simply ended there, wave a magic wand. You don't seem to consider it simply being the start of something more. Again, where Jesus life in prophecy reflects what Israel went through. Consider there is another layer above that, as even the church brought up one of the prophecies AGAIN, and built upon it AGAIN. The prophecies Jesus and John bring up may ALSO have another layer, another fulfillment. Consider that the abomination of desolation occurred in the 2nd century BC where some king put an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies, and sacrificed pigs in the Holy of Holies, where God's presence resided at the Ark of the Covenant. Consider that Titus tried to do the approximate same thing in 70AD, except that the temple was destroyed before he got the chance. And, that was apparently a freak accident. He had intended on putting an altar in the temple, and dedicating the temple to Rome. (It was either to the pantheon of Roman gods, or to the Roman Emperor being god.) It would have been basically the same abomination of desolation. I consider it that God did not allow it at that time, so He destroyed the temple through the Romans. (A fire, started by accident, that both the Jews and Romans attempted to put out, except that there was not enough water in Jerusalem.

Please: one topic per post

Re times of Gentiles

To say that a certain condition will continue through a period does not say other things will happen once that period is over! The Redeemer identified in the Isaiah quote was Christ in the Gospel event if 31 AD!

All he means is that the same partial blindness is going to persist all through the Gentiles times. Partial. Neither all nor nothing. Partial.

 

[EarlyActs]

I think you got that "times of the Gentiles" from Paul, who spoke about it. However, he also said that it would come around to Israel again. Israel would receive mercy, due to the obedience of the Gentiles. Since you seem/appear to deny this, that is why antisemitism comes up. (Please note by saying seem/appear, that should be understood to mean... open to discussion. However, discussion is a two way street.) To reiterate my position, hopefully being clear, those saved at that time (after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) are the remnant/the elect that remain within the Nation of Israel, not those who joined the church. The millennial kingdom is not meant to be eternal. Revelation 21 makes that clear when it says that the first heaven and first earth have passed away. I Corinthians 15 also says that the Son gives the kingdom back to the Father after He defeats the final enemy, death. In an earthly view, the millennial kingdom leads into the eternal kingdom of the Father, in which we see the NHNE, and New Jerusalem.

"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His [a]people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”"

And I'm sure there are Messianic Jews who will tell you that there are Gentiles who treated them like Romans 11, condemning themselves before God.

"17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [j]rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” "

Why don't you consider discussing the possibility that it actually is just one program that has different parts? You keep speaking of the enthronement of Christ as though everything simply ended there, wave a magic wand. You don't seem to consider it simply being the start of something more. Again, where Jesus life in prophecy reflects what Israel went through. Consider there is another layer above that, as even the church brought up one of the prophecies AGAIN, and built upon it AGAIN. The prophecies Jesus and John bring up may ALSO have another layer, another fulfillment. Consider that the abomination of desolation occurred in the 2nd century BC where some king put an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies, and sacrificed pigs in the Holy of Holies, where God's presence resided at the Ark of the Covenant. Consider that Titus tried to do the approximate same thing in 70AD, except that the temple was destroyed before he got the chance. And, that was apparently a freak accident. He had intended on putting an altar in the temple, and dedicating the temple to Rome. (It was either to the pantheon of Roman gods, or to the Roman Emperor being god.) It would have been basically the same abomination of desolation. I consider it that God did not allow it at that time, so He destroyed the temple through the Romans. (A fire, started by accident, that both the Jews and Romans attempted to put out, except that there was not enough water in Jerusalem.

Re mercy to Israel

You are dishonest about when they do. The passage clearly says it is now and in the Gospel. When it says mercy HAS come (not would come), it is referring to the same time as Gentiles.

As proof, Rom 12 begins with practical things by appealing to that Same ‘has been done ‘ mercy.

 

[EarlyActs]

I think you got that "times of the Gentiles" from Paul, who spoke about it. However, he also said that it would come around to Israel again. Israel would receive mercy, due to the obedience of the Gentiles. Since you seem/appear to deny this, that is why antisemitism comes up. (Please note by saying seem/appear, that should be understood to mean... open to discussion. However, discussion is a two way street.) To reiterate my position, hopefully being clear, those saved at that time (after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) are the remnant/the elect that remain within the Nation of Israel, not those who joined the church. The millennial kingdom is not meant to be eternal. Revelation 21 makes that clear when it says that the first heaven and first earth have passed away. I Corinthians 15 also says that the Son gives the kingdom back to the Father after He defeats the final enemy, death. In an earthly view, the millennial kingdom leads into the eternal kingdom of the Father, in which we see the NHNE, and New Jerusalem.

"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His [a]people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”"

And I'm sure there are Messianic Jews who will tell you that there are Gentiles who treated them like Romans 11, condemning themselves before God.

"17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [j]rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” "

Why don't you consider discussing the possibility that it actually is just one program that has different parts? You keep speaking of the enthronement of Christ as though everything simply ended there, wave a magic wand. You don't seem to consider it simply being the start of something more. Again, where Jesus life in prophecy reflects what Israel went through. Consider there is another layer above that, as even the church brought up one of the prophecies AGAIN, and built upon it AGAIN. The prophecies Jesus and John bring up may ALSO have another layer, another fulfillment. Consider that the abomination of desolation occurred in the 2nd century BC where some king put an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies, and sacrificed pigs in the Holy of Holies, where God's presence resided at the Ark of the Covenant. Consider that Titus tried to do the approximate same thing in 70AD, except that the temple was destroyed before he got the chance. And, that was apparently a freak accident. He had intended on putting an altar in the temple, and dedicating the temple to Rome. (It was either to the pantheon of Roman gods, or to the Roman Emperor being god.) It would have been basically the same abomination of desolation. I consider it that God did not allow it at that time, so He destroyed the temple through the Romans. (A fire, started by accident, that both the Jews and Romans attempted to put out, except that there was not enough water in Jerusalem.

Re 2 “parts” not 2 programs.

Definitions. That’s why I don’t do 2 parts. You are asking for entirely different defining features. Not the unity at the end of the ages that is now seen in Ephesians. (He meant the present time in Christ at the end of preceding ages).

 

[EarlyActs]

I think you got that "times of the Gentiles" from Paul, who spoke about it. However, he also said that it would come around to Israel again. Israel would receive mercy, due to the obedience of the Gentiles. Since you seem/appear to deny this, that is why antisemitism comes up. (Please note by saying seem/appear, that should be understood to mean... open to discussion. However, discussion is a two way street.) To reiterate my position, hopefully being clear, those saved at that time (after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) are the remnant/the elect that remain within the Nation of Israel, not those who joined the church. The millennial kingdom is not meant to be eternal. Revelation 21 makes that clear when it says that the first heaven and first earth have passed away. I Corinthians 15 also says that the Son gives the kingdom back to the Father after He defeats the final enemy, death. In an earthly view, the millennial kingdom leads into the eternal kingdom of the Father, in which we see the NHNE, and New Jerusalem.

"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His [a]people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”"

And I'm sure there are Messianic Jews who will tell you that there are Gentiles who treated them like Romans 11, condemning themselves before God.

"17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [j]rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” "

Why don't you consider discussing the possibility that it actually is just one program that has different parts? You keep speaking of the enthronement of Christ as though everything simply ended there, wave a magic wand. You don't seem to consider it simply being the start of something more. Again, where Jesus life in prophecy reflects what Israel went through. Consider there is another layer above that, as even the church brought up one of the prophecies AGAIN, and built upon it AGAIN. The prophecies Jesus and John bring up may ALSO have another layer, another fulfillment. Consider that the abomination of desolation occurred in the 2nd century BC where some king put an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies, and sacrificed pigs in the Holy of Holies, where God's presence resided at the Ark of the Covenant. Consider that Titus tried to do the approximate same thing in 70AD, except that the temple was destroyed before he got the chance. And, that was apparently a freak accident. He had intended on putting an altar in the temple, and dedicating the temple to Rome. (It was either to the pantheon of Roman gods, or to the Roman Emperor being god.) It would have been basically the same abomination of desolation. I consider it that God did not allow it at that time, so He destroyed the temple through the Romans. (A fire, started by accident, that both the Jews and Romans attempted to put out, except that there was not enough water in Jerusalem.

Re AofD
Have you ever figured out why God would blame Israel so much for Roman (and other) pagan worship that he would destroy the temple??? Haha, that’s a doozy brother. You’ve had a month to read THE COVENANT REVOLT.

Your treatment of the Titus situation is a nuisance. Anyone reading Luke can see that the zealots were their own problem. The issue is that Israel would not join Christs mission to the nations; that’s how they ruined their country. It’s the ‘apostasia.’ A huge tragedy.

 

[EarlyActs]

I think you got that "times of the Gentiles" from Paul, who spoke about it. However, he also said that it would come around to Israel again. Israel would receive mercy, due to the obedience of the Gentiles. Since you seem/appear to deny this, that is why antisemitism comes up. (Please note by saying seem/appear, that should be understood to mean... open to discussion. However, discussion is a two way street.) To reiterate my position, hopefully being clear, those saved at that time (after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) are the remnant/the elect that remain within the Nation of Israel, not those who joined the church. The millennial kingdom is not meant to be eternal. Revelation 21 makes that clear when it says that the first heaven and first earth have passed away. I Corinthians 15 also says that the Son gives the kingdom back to the Father after He defeats the final enemy, death. In an earthly view, the millennial kingdom leads into the eternal kingdom of the Father, in which we see the NHNE, and New Jerusalem.

"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His [a]people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”"

And I'm sure there are Messianic Jews who will tell you that there are Gentiles who treated them like Romans 11, condemning themselves before God.

"17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [j]rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” "

Why don't you consider discussing the possibility that it actually is just one program that has different parts? You keep speaking of the enthronement of Christ as though everything simply ended there, wave a magic wand. You don't seem to consider it simply being the start of something more. Again, where Jesus life in prophecy reflects what Israel went through. Consider there is another layer above that, as even the church brought up one of the prophecies AGAIN, and built upon it AGAIN. The prophecies Jesus and John bring up may ALSO have another layer, another fulfillment. Consider that the abomination of desolation occurred in the 2nd century BC where some king put an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies, and sacrificed pigs in the Holy of Holies, where God's presence resided at the Ark of the Covenant. Consider that Titus tried to do the approximate same thing in 70AD, except that the temple was destroyed before he got the chance. And, that was apparently a freak accident. He had intended on putting an altar in the temple, and dedicating the temple to Rome. (It was either to the pantheon of Roman gods, or to the Roman Emperor being god.) It would have been basically the same abomination of desolation. I consider it that God did not allow it at that time, so He destroyed the temple through the Romans. (A fire, started by accident, that both the Jews and Romans attempted to put out, except that there was not enough water in Jerusalem.

Re millennium
As I have shown before the 2nd program is what drives the millenium. But there is no 2nd program with entirely different definitions of everything in eschatology.

Notice how the NT either doesn’t mention it, or it has no Judaic features?

 

[EarlyActs]

I think you got that "times of the Gentiles" from Paul, who spoke about it. However, he also said that it would come around to Israel again. Israel would receive mercy, due to the obedience of the Gentiles. Since you seem/appear to deny this, that is why antisemitism comes up. (Please note by saying seem/appear, that should be understood to mean... open to discussion. However, discussion is a two way street.) To reiterate my position, hopefully being clear, those saved at that time (after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) are the remnant/the elect that remain within the Nation of Israel, not those who joined the church. The millennial kingdom is not meant to be eternal. Revelation 21 makes that clear when it says that the first heaven and first earth have passed away. I Corinthians 15 also says that the Son gives the kingdom back to the Father after He defeats the final enemy, death. In an earthly view, the millennial kingdom leads into the eternal kingdom of the Father, in which we see the NHNE, and New Jerusalem.

"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His [a]people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”"

And I'm sure there are Messianic Jews who will tell you that there are Gentiles who treated them like Romans 11, condemning themselves before God.

"17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [j]rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” "

Why don't you consider discussing the possibility that it actually is just one program that has different parts? You keep speaking of the enthronement of Christ as though everything simply ended there, wave a magic wand. You don't seem to consider it simply being the start of something more. Again, where Jesus life in prophecy reflects what Israel went through. Consider there is another layer above that, as even the church brought up one of the prophecies AGAIN, and built upon it AGAIN. The prophecies Jesus and John bring up may ALSO have another layer, another fulfillment. Consider that the abomination of desolation occurred in the 2nd century BC where some king put an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies, and sacrificed pigs in the Holy of Holies, where God's presence resided at the Ark of the Covenant. Consider that Titus tried to do the approximate same thing in 70AD, except that the temple was destroyed before he got the chance. And, that was apparently a freak accident. He had intended on putting an altar in the temple, and dedicating the temple to Rome. (It was either to the pantheon of Roman gods, or to the Roman Emperor being god.) It would have been basically the same abomination of desolation. I consider it that God did not allow it at that time, so He destroyed the temple through the Romans. (A fire, started by accident, that both the Jews and Romans attempted to put out, except that there was not enough water in Jerusalem.

Re Christ’s Davidic enthronement
It doesn’t mean the world changed; it means God is commanding all people and rulers submit to the Son. Shame on you for calling this a magic wand. It is Ps 2 and 110 being put into effect.

 

[Mr GLee]

Dispensationalism is neo-Judaic because, as you can see from the interactions with Judaism in the early church, groups rose up which 'embraced' Christ--so long as you embraced torah traditions, ceremonies, practice. This is found in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, Phillipians, both Corinthians, Hebrews (!), etc. In Colossians, in western Asia, you were dis-credited if you did not practice torah with them. The term dis-credit (paralogizo) was specifically used to conflict with justification which is logizo to the believer.

I don't think too many people will go down the road of the Judaizers on practice of torah, but they have on eschatology. See Jn 12:34; the commonly understood view was that Messiah's kingdom would be on earth forever going forward. Jesus called this darkness, because His imperative kingdom had come. But many attempts are made to have a kingdom form like the Davidic--Solomonic days, and in the same place. For a time slot for this, the 1000 year image of the Rev has been adopted, even though there are numerous references to the kingdom being forever once it arrives, Dan 2, Ps 145, etc. Straining to make this work, we find that the time is both desolate in some views and a panacea in others.

When you say. The imperative Kingdom has come, How would that different then say before it came ?

Rather than the term "early church" not found in the scriptures I would say more of the restored body of believers beginning with Abel. The second born to represent all born again The time of the first century reformation had come .

I would think the foundation of the first century reformation must be visited giving us a understanding to why a reformation was needed . David said if mankind destroys the foundation of a doctrine . What could those do that are trusting the foundation of a doctrine.

 

[EarlyActs]

When you say. The imperative Kingdom has come, How would that different then say before it came ?

Rather than the term "early church" not found in the scriptures I would say more of the restored body of believers beginning with Abel. The second born to represent all born again The time of the first century reformation had come .

I would think the foundation of the first century reformation must be visited giving us a understanding to why a reformation was needed . David said if mankind destroys the foundation of a doctrine . What could those do that are trusting the foundation of a doctrine.

That is a good question bc of some passages like Ps 145 about the kingdom and all nations obeying. But now there is an event in history that ties all of this together in a proof. See Acts 17: God has proven he will judge the world through Christ by the resurrection. This concept is in Ps 2 and 110

 

[Mr GLee]

That is a good question bc of some passages like Ps 145 about the kingdom and all nations obeying. But now there is an event in history that ties all of this together in a proof. See Acts 17: God has proven he will judge the world through Christ by the resurrection. This concept is in Ps 2 and 110

Hi thanks for the reply.and the verses .

The key I believe is "why imgaine a vain thing" , God is not a man

Psalm 2King James Version2 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, (not called by God) and the rulers take counsel together,(without the Lord ) against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

The foundation .The unbelieving Jew came about because the atheist Jews jealousy of all the surrounding pagan nations.

Kings as men, dying mankind lording it over the faith or understanding of the non venerable pew warmers and demanded of Samuel the last Judge sent as a apostle . Demanding he to give then a king just like all the pagan nations

Our Holy Father informed Samael, it's not you seen that they reject as King of kings but me not seen that they refuse to worship (fools)

God used the period of time kings in Israel as the abomination of desolation. When Jesus walked out of temple for the last time (Matthew 23) Christ declared the abomination of desolation. making it without effect . . desolate, saying "is" desolate not wil be. . "is".

I believe Christians serve the same kind of Government of Christ as the Judges. Men and women prophets sent out as apostles from all the nations of the world No women or gentle prophets.Made for a Jewish kings only club. Women get back behind the high wall .Gentile behind the other high wall of separation

LOL Women and gentiles to the back of the bus keep it down. . . no prophesying .keep those youngins quite

1 Samuel 8: 4-7 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Again the time of the first century reformation, it came 2000 years ago , The shadows of those parables as ceremonial laws became substance.

We serve a invisible God by his faith (giving us ears to hear His understanding that works in us to both will ad do it to His god pleasure (not of our own self . he gives us the vision as it is writen not revealed by flesh and blood .

 

[EarlyActs]

Hi thanks for the reply.and the verses .

The key I believe is "why imgaine a vain thing" , God is not a man

Psalm 2King James Version2 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, (not called by God) and the rulers take counsel together,(without the Lord ) against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

The foundation .The unbelieving Jew came about because the atheist Jews jealousy of all the surrounding pagan nations.

Kings as men, dying mankind lording it over the faith or understanding of the non venerable pew warmers and demanded of Samuel the last Judge sent as a apostle . Demanding he to give then a king just like all the pagan nations

Our Holy Father informed Samael, it's not you seen that they reject as King of kings but me not seen that they refuse to worship (fools)

God used the period of time kings in Israel as the abomination of desolation. When Jesus walked out of temple for the last time (Matthew 23) Christ declared the abomination of desolation. making it without effect . . desolate, saying "is" desolate not wil be. . "is".

I believe Christians serve the same kind of Government of Christ as the Judges. Men and women prophets sent out as apostles from all the nations of the world No women or gentle prophets.Made for a Jewish kings only club. Women get back behind the high wall .Gentile behind the other high wall of separation

LOL Women and gentiles to the back of the bus keep it down. . . no prophesying .keep those youngins quite

1 Samuel 8: 4-7 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Again the time of the first century reformation, it came 2000 years ago , The shadows of those parables as ceremonial laws became substance.

We serve a invisible God by his faith (giving us ears to hear His understanding that works in us to both will ad do it to His god pleasure (not of our own self . he gives us the vision as it is writen not revealed by flesh and blood .

I can’t understand anything you say. If you keep it short it will help unravel the ball of knots.

The 2 Psalms announced a coming day, and Jesus said it was here. Dan 2 announced the same arrival of the kingdom.

Otherwise there was no difference before and after.

 

[Ghada]

I don't think too many people will go down the road of the Judaizers on practice of torah, but they have on eschatology.

If you mean the Lord will rule the nations after slaying their armies, then that's the oldest prophecy of the Lord fulfilled by the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

See Jn 12:34; the commonly understood view was that Messiah's kingdom would be on earth forever going forward.

Just a thousand years.

Nothing on this earth is forever, since it will be changed for the new heaven and earth.

Jesus called this darkness, because His imperative kingdom had come.

No, He called it premature. The time is not yet.

That's why He had to send some angels around to shepherd the disciples back to Jerusalem, like He just commanded them before ascending into a cloud.

But many attempts are made to have a kingdom form like the Davidic--Solomonic days, and in the same place.

Not at all like those days, but much more glorious with the Lord as King. And not just in the middle east, but over all nations on earth.

Now, Abraham will receive the land promised him and his natural seed promised by the Lord. But that land as seen in Ezekiel fills the gaps, that David and Solomon left unconquered.

For a time slot for this, the 1000 year image of the Rev has been adopted

Making images and symbols of plain language of God, is making God's Book into just another bunch of myths:

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Many have done so with the Red Sea crossing, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and His thousand year rule on earth.

You all pervert God's words into fable and myth only, when you don't want to believe them as written.

, even though there are numerous references to the kingdom being forever once it arrives, Dan 2, Ps 145, etc.

As well as the OT being an everlasting covenant.

 

[EarlyActs]

I think you got that "times of the Gentiles" from Paul, who spoke about it. However, he also said that it would come around to Israel again. Israel would receive mercy, due to the obedience of the Gentiles. Since you seem/appear to deny this, that is why antisemitism comes up. (Please note by saying seem/appear, that should be understood to mean... open to discussion. However, discussion is a two way street.) To reiterate my position, hopefully being clear, those saved at that time (after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in) are the remnant/the elect that remain within the Nation of Israel, not those who joined the church. The millennial kingdom is not meant to be eternal. Revelation 21 makes that clear when it says that the first heaven and first earth have passed away. I Corinthians 15 also says that the Son gives the kingdom back to the Father after He defeats the final enemy, death. In an earthly view, the millennial kingdom leads into the eternal kingdom of the Father, in which we see the NHNE, and New Jerusalem.

"3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His [a]people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”"

And I'm sure there are Messianic Jews who will tell you that there are Gentiles who treated them like Romans 11, condemning themselves before God.

"17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [j]rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” "

Why don't you consider discussing the possibility that it actually is just one program that has different parts? You keep speaking of the enthronement of Christ as though everything simply ended there, wave a magic wand. You don't seem to consider it simply being the start of something more. Again, where Jesus life in prophecy reflects what Israel went through. Consider there is another layer above that, as even the church brought up one of the prophecies AGAIN, and built upon it AGAIN. The prophecies Jesus and John bring up may ALSO have another layer, another fulfillment. Consider that the abomination of desolation occurred in the 2nd century BC where some king put an altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies, and sacrificed pigs in the Holy of Holies, where God's presence resided at the Ark of the Covenant. Consider that Titus tried to do the approximate same thing in 70AD, except that the temple was destroyed before he got the chance. And, that was apparently a freak accident. He had intended on putting an altar in the temple, and dedicating the temple to Rome. (It was either to the pantheon of Roman gods, or to the Roman Emperor being god.) It would have been basically the same abomination of desolation. I consider it that God did not allow it at that time, so He destroyed the temple through the Romans. (A fire, started by accident, that both the Jews and Romans attempted to put out, except that there was not enough water in Jerusalem.

The form of persuasive speech Paul used in Rom 11 does not require the future to actually happen. He was appealing to his own people in that generation, especially because it would prevent them from going the route of the revolutionary zealots.

The expression 'all Israel will be saved' is easily understood in a conditional way, because of 'in this manner.' That would be the manner of a faith-based entry into the olive tree, not a race-nation. And then if we go back to ch 2 where 'real Israelites' are first identified, along with ch 9, we see even more distance from the race-nation. 11:14 only expects a few from the race-nation to believe.

The OT quotes of the end of Rom 11 are not futuristic; he is referring to completed things: the Redeemer did come to Zion, sins were taken away (that's justification, not transformation).

Another factor is that an end of a Gentile age is an end, but not necessarily a return to what was there: a hardening is not necessarily lifted at the end of the period; it's just there on through it. If I allow a babysitter to watch TV until I'm back, that doesn't mean that when I'm back they can keep watching; other things are going on. It seems God was underscoring that the race-nation is no guarantee of anything by saying, as far back as the prophets, that the race-nation 'would see but not comprehend, hear but not understand.' That's the last thing we hear from Paul in Acts 28.

Luther thought Rom 11 meant that Jews could still become outstanding evangelists. Then he had a personal loss by having a Jewish doctor help his daughter, and had other issues, and was antisemitic. But prior, his theology, and his hiring a Jewish doctor, show none. In addition, are there no ethical complaints to be made about Jews who control lots of media, finance, industry, education, simply because they are Jewish? I thought that was really primitive, to fail to criticize someone ethically because of race.

 

[Mr GLee]

Something I have been looking at. I would offer two kinds of Jews. Two kinds of Israel.

Like with the use of a coin one side carnal (Cesar) the other spiritual not seen . Christ the husband

Israel like the word Jew is used in two ways. One outward unconverted dying flesh after the word Jacob. The other spiritual inward born again praise of God not man seen .

God in Isaiah 62 re-named the wife in Acts previously called Israel born again Israel an inward Jew, renamed Christian.

Christians residents of the city of Christ a more befitting name to the bride of all the nations.

Romans 2:28-29King James Version For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

The all Israel that will be saved are the born again Israel not those that remained under Jacob (the deceiver)

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

The word Christian is used in the same way. Not all who claim to be Christian are not .

A true Christian born again can be called a inward Jew . There were some outward Jews trying to pass as Christians. Hoping their DNA could profit for something

Revelation 2:9I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

 

[TMSO]

The form of persuasive speech Paul used in Rom 11 does not require the future to actually happen. He was appealing to his own people in that generation, especially because it would prevent them from going the route of the revolutionary zealots.

I'm not sure where you get that he was writing to his own people. Romans 11:13 "But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them." If you can't get this right, how can I expect you to get any of it right? It does require the future, because all Israel has not been saved yet. And yes, this is corporal. We already have the individual Jews being saved since Israel is only partially blinded, not completely.

The expression 'all Israel will be saved' is easily understood in a conditional way, because of 'in this manner.' That would be the manner of a faith-based entry into the olive tree, not a race-nation. And then if we go back to ch 2 where 'real Israelites' are first identified, along with ch 9, we see even more distance from the race-nation. 11:14 only expects a few from the race-nation to believe.

Actually "all Israel will be saved" is best understood not isolated the way you made it, but next to the rest of scripture and prophecy. Obviously, when you isolate an idea, passage, or quote mine, you can make it say whatever you want. Just leave out the rest of the important stuff. Remember what Paul said about Israel being called by God to be His chosen people. Romans 11:28-29 "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Hence Paul explaining to the Gentiles he was writing to that God has not rejected Israel. God can't because the calling is irrevocable.

The OT quotes of the end of Rom 11 are not futuristic; he is referring to completed things: the Redeemer did come to Zion, sins were taken away (that's justification, not transformation).

THE DELIVERE WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS. (capitalized because it is in my Bible.) Now, removing ungodliness from Jacob does not sound like justification, does it? God taking away their sins sounds like God is taking away their sins, right? You understand that that is connected to removing ungodliness from Jacob, correct? So it is transformative. Just as the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 is transformative. Once the 70 weeks are over, we have the result. Everlasting righteousness entering the land sounds pretty transformative to me.

Another factor is that an end of a Gentile age is an end, but not necessarily a return to what was there: a hardening is not necessarily lifted at the end of the period; it's just there on through it. If I allow a babysitter to watch TV until I'm back, that doesn't mean that when I'm back they can keep watching; other things are going on. It seems God was underscoring that the race-nation is no guarantee of anything by saying, as far back as the prophets, that the race-nation 'would see but not comprehend, hear but not understand.' That's the last thing we hear from Paul in Acts 28.

Romans 11:20 (to answer with actual scripture): "For I do not want you, bretheren, to be uninformed of this mystery" [apparently still a mystery for some even with the explanation] "-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation" [hmm...food for thought here...] that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;" It seems really clear here that the partial hardening that has happened is until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. I mean, it is right there in the verse. UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. I'm not sure how one can be more clear then that. And you are the one who said that it's the original that is important.

until	ἄχρις (achris)	891: until, as far as	a prim. particle, preposition
the fullness	πλήρωμα (plērōma)	4138: fullness, a filling up	from pléroó
of the Gentiles	ἐθνῶν (ethnōn)	1484: a race, a nation, pl. the nations (as distinct from Isr.)	probably from a prim. root
has come	εἰσέλθῃ (eiselthē)	1525: to go in (to), enter	from eis and erchomai
in;

Even in the original language it is quite clear. If you allow the babysitter to watch TV until you are back, it is understood that that TV is turned off when you return, unless they ask if they can keep watching. You have to understand, unlike with us, everything i black and white with God. That babysitter is taking advantage of God if they keep watching TV after He has returned... and He won't have it. Why does everything come out with man on top of God? It is your interpretation that runs contrary to the clear, concise, inspired word of God, from God's mind to Paul's pen. Things have changed since we entered the post modern and post truth age. Things don't mean what they say anymore, because we get to choose what the truth is, which is what you did above.

Luther thought Rom 11 meant that Jews could still become outstanding evangelists. Then he had a personal loss by having a Jewish doctor help his daughter, and had other issues, and was antisemitic. But prior, his theology, and his hiring a Jewish doctor, show none. In addition, are there no ethical complaints to be made about Jews who control lots of media, finance, industry, education, simply because they are Jewish? I thought that was really primitive, to fail to criticize someone ethically because of race.

Okay, the death of his daughter and sickness was in 1542. He fully supported the expulsion of the Jews from Saxony in 1536. It is possible he was antisemitic all his life, but was conciliatory in an effort to convert the Jews to Christendom. As they continued to reject his calls, he became more and more vocal in his antisemitism. In a scholarly essay I read, there was no mention of any Jewish doctor's, and the paper was solely about Martin Luther's views of Jews and Judaism throughout his life. If, what you said was correct, there should have been something... anything said about it. Alas, after an hour of searching (I have a google ranger badge), I couldn't anything anywhere. I did find that she died from the plague. (Yes... that plague.)

 

[TMSO]

The form of persuasive speech Paul used in Rom 11 does not require the future to actually happen. He was appealing to his own people in that generation, especially because it would prevent them from going the route of the revolutionary zealots.

I reconsidered what I wrote earlier on this, and apologize if it is a little heavy handed. I have been discussing language and such with someone else, and apparently that got mixed in here. I am just seeing a lot of people isolating verses, and not using context, and thus interpreting just the verse, which puts it in contradiction with not just the context, but at times, with the rest of scripture. It just irks me a bit.

 

[EarlyActs]

I'm not sure where you get that he was writing to his own people. Romans 11:13 "But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them." If you can't get this right, how can I expect you to get any of it right? It does require the future, because all Israel has not been saved yet. And yes, this is corporal. We already have the individual Jews being saved since Israel is only partially blinded, not completely.

Actually "all Israel will be saved" is best understood not isolated the way you made it, but next to the rest of scripture and prophecy. Obviously, when you isolate an idea, passage, or quote mine, you can make it say whatever you want. Just leave out the rest of the important stuff. Remember what Paul said about Israel being called by God to be His chosen people. Romans 11:28-29 "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Hence Paul explaining to the Gentiles he was writing to that God has not rejected Israel. God can't because the calling is irrevocable.

THE DELIVERE WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS. (capitalized because it is in my Bible.) Now, removing ungodliness from Jacob does not sound like justification, does it? God taking away their sins sounds like God is taking away their sins, right? You understand that that is connected to removing ungodliness from Jacob, correct? So it is transformative. Just as the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 is transformative. Once the 70 weeks are over, we have the result. Everlasting righteousness entering the land sounds pretty transformative to me.

Romans 11:20 (to answer with actual scripture): "For I do not want you, bretheren, to be uninformed of this mystery" [apparently still a mystery for some even with the explanation] "-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation" [hmm...food for thought here...] that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;" It seems really clear here that the partial hardening that has happened is until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. I mean, it is right there in the verse. UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. I'm not sure how one can be more clear then that. And you are the one who said that it's the original that is important.

until	ἄχρις (achris)	891: until, as far as	a prim. particle, preposition
the fullness	πλήρωμα (plērōma)	4138: fullness, a filling up	from pléroó
of the Gentiles	ἐθνῶν (ethnōn)	1484: a race, a nation, pl. the nations (as distinct from Isr.)	probably from a prim. root
has come	εἰσέλθῃ (eiselthē)	1525: to go in (to), enter	from eis and erchomai
in;

Even in the original language it is quite clear. If you allow the babysitter to watch TV until you are back, it is understood that that TV is turned off when you return, unless they ask if they can keep watching. You have to understand, unlike with us, everything i black and white with God. That babysitter is taking advantage of God if they keep watching TV after He has returned... and He won't have it. Why does everything come out with man on top of God? It is your interpretation that runs contrary to the clear, concise, inspired word of God, from God's mind to Paul's pen. Things have changed since we entered the post modern and post truth age. Things don't mean what they say anymore, because we get to choose what the truth is, which is what you did above.

Okay, the death of his daughter and sickness was in 1542. He fully supported the expulsion of the Jews from Saxony in 1536. It is possible he was antisemitic all his life, but was conciliatory in an effort to convert the Jews to Christendom. As they continued to reject his calls, he became more and more vocal in his antisemitism. In a scholarly essay I read, there was no mention of any Jewish doctor's, and the paper was solely about Martin Luther's views of Jews and Judaism throughout his life. If, what you said was correct, there should have been something... anything said about it. Alas, after an hour of searching (I have a google ranger badge), I couldn't anything anywhere. I did find that she died from the plague. (Yes... that plague.)

He says several times he was prodding or pushing his own people to be missionaries, but telling the Gentiles that. It’s very simple to see.